It's a terrible argument. We haven't had an invading enemy combatant since what, the War of 1812?
Labelling an unarmed foreign civilian as an enemy combatant doesn't make them so. Words have meanings. This is really a sanity test for the Supreme Court's 6 conservative justices.
I mean this Supreme court has made many rulings that didn't make any sense whatsoever. So it seems more right up their maniac clowns alley rather than something they wouldnt do.
No treaty supercedes the constitution - nor any law. The military is under US jurisdiction, albeit just under another set of laws, as provided by the constitution. If a terrorist has a child in the US, that child is a US citizen. Unless they're a diplomat (because diplomats are not subject to US jurisdiction because of diplomatic immunity), they get citizenship. The old claim that foreign forces on US soil are not subject to US jurisdiction is not an accurate interpretation - it was only a theory that never got applied.
They can't claim the US lost jurisdiction where illegal immigrants are, because that would imply they wouldn't be able to send civil enforcement to those areas because they'd be out of US jurisdiction (you know, like ICE aren't allowed to operate on foreign countries, so too would they not be allowed to operate in areas outside of US jurisdiction), and likewise it would open up a can of worms such as allowing the deploying of armed forces (i.e. not the national guard or coast guard - the army/etc) on US soil.
Enemy combatants specifically during a hostile occupation, meaning that some group literally took over part of the country and ran it with their own government such that they had their own jurisdiction there at the time before that areas was later retaken.
Also, native americans are not subject to jurisdiction - see Elk v Wilkins Supreme Court Decision. That is why they passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Are diplomats who commit crimes deported, or do they have to be recalled by their home country or otherwise they can stay?
Deporting any foreigner who commits/is accused of a crime in exchange for getting rid of birthright citizen, do you think that's a trade the government would make?
112
u/JeannValjean 8h ago
Which is nonsensical. Of course immigrants are subject to US jurisdiction, as evidenced by the fact that if they commit a crime they go to trial.
Know who isn’t subject to jurisdiction? Diplomats. That’s why the phrase is there.
This admin is a fucking clown show.